you are comparing a figure of speech in the Bible to a main point of Darwin, so much a point in fact, that he likened it to natural selection.
it is sad that even when i try to meet you halfway by using Biblical concepts to explain the fallacies you are presenting, you still lash out unthinking instead of trying to see what i am attempting to communicate...
can you imagine a Biblical literalist who believes that the sun goes round the earth? i can. it's not too hard, and before heliocentricity was introduced, most Christians did in fact believe this. this Christian would say that his belief comes "from the Bible!", the same way that a Social Darwinist might triumph Darwin as their intellectual inspiration.
however, you and i both know that the important questions of Christianity are as far away from the debate of which goes round which as Christ is from Lucifer, so far away by now that it is far and wide considered a mere figure of speech, as you point out.
but it wasn't always considered so, but again that simple historical fact bears no effect on the validity of the modern interpretation. and this simple point is all anyone has ever tried to say about Social Darwinism with regards to modern evolutionary theory.
read my analogy again: Social Darwinism is to modern evolutionary theory as geocentricity is to modern Biblical interpretation. this is to say that Social Darwinism is
not relevant to modern evolutionary theory anymore, the same way that geocentricity is irrelevant to modern Christianity,
even though many Christians have claimed in centuries past that heliocentricity is downright heresy, in other words,
extremely relevant to the corpus of beliefs.
so, just as you call yourself a Christian but do not espouse geocentricity, proponents of modern evolutionary theory can, too, distance themselves from Social Darwinism genuinely, honestly, and fairly, without contradiction, even though there have been historical claims of equivalence, and even if such claims came from the "father" of the theory himself.
seriously, it seems posters on this forum react more so to tone than content. i'm mostly agreeing with you, and attempting to find a middle ground. contention and argument are useful sometimes, but not when applied with such large strokes. peace, we are all mostly of the same mind here, save a few minor details.
-intigheten